Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Andy Rooney: Christians "uneducated"

Yes, Andy Looney doesn't think too highly of Christians. While reflecting on the recent election, Rooney told his Tufts University audience that Christian fundamentalism is a result of "a lack of education", and that "They (Christians) haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer."

Bernard Moon of San Francisco has a great column on lessons that the liberal elite can learn about those of us who are of faith. An excerpt:

Rooney is reflective of the "liberal elite" in America that suffers from an odd disconnect with much of America and those who voted for President Bush. With respect to Isaac Asimov, I have decided to create "The Three Political Laws of Christian Fundamentalists" for the confused "liberal elite":

  • A Christian is a human being capable of independent, logical reasoning to the highest order.

  • A Christian is not a mindless entity seeking to obey public religious leaders, such as Pat Robertson, John Paul II, or Ralph Reed, when voting on the future of America.

  • A Christian must protect his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the Bible.

    These laws might serve a good base as these elites attempt to reach out to those in "Jesusland" over the next four years and work to correct their lenses that only allows them to see "homophobic knuckle-draggers."

  • Monday, November 29, 2004

    Howard Dean...a "centrist"?

    Boy, just when you thought liberals couldn't get any more condescending!

    I have maintained that liberals get elected to statewide or national public office by distancing themselves from their liberal labels as much as possible. Why? Well, it's simple, really...no one likes liberals. Even Southern and many Midwestern Democrats are proud Dems...they're just not liberals.

    Well, Eleanor Clift proves my point. She thinks naming Howard Dean as DNC head honcho would be a good thing. She also realizes that Dean's a "screaming liberal" (literally and figuratively!), and that's why she would like to see him as DNC chief. She also is no idiot (unless you consider her ideology), so she knows that having an unabashed (or "outed") liberal as the leader of a party trying to run from the label...well, it's a recipe for Dems to lose even more seats.

    That's why on The Mclaughlin Group, she made the side-splitting, guffaw-inducing assertion -- and with a straight face, no less! -- that Howard Dean is a "centrist"! Dean was ambivalent on whether it was truly a good thing that Saddam was deposed: "I suppose that's a good thing." Dean also found the theory "interesting" that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Sound like a "centrist" to you, or a certifiable left-wing nutbar?

    When Pat Buchanan called Dean "radical", Clift fired back with this gem: "What you call radical, most of us call mainstream." Sorry, but I have yet to see the "mainstream" in red-faced rants and blood-curdling "EAAAAHHHHHHH!" screams. Clift's "mainstream" quote is further proof that liberals live detached from the real world and wouldn't know "mainstream" if it bit them in their posteriors.

    Sunday, November 28, 2004

    Liberals: "To hell with values!"

    That's the name of a column by leftist Michael Kinsley in the LA Times. Yes, the same LAT that tried to pass off discredited slime as gospel back in '02 when they tried (unsuccessfully) to derail Arnie's "Kaleeforneea" governor campaign.

    Anyway, you can read the whole column for yourself, but they make you register with the site to read. So I'll paste in one line, a line that I think sums up liberal attitudes about the role of government:

    Liberals' actual motivation — the instinct that a prosperous society ought to mitigate the unfairness of life to some reasonable extent — isn't considered a value.

    Kinsley was being sarcastic, in that he felt that said "motivation" by liberals was indeed a value...just not a value as defined by us red-staters.

    That line is telling, though, in that I firmly believe that most libs feel that way: the role of government is to "mitigate the unfairness of life." For the love of Pete, how freaking naive can these people be?

    A prosperous society is a generous society, but it must always derive from the private level. Note that I had a previous posting about how the rich blue-staters don't give much to charity, but the more modest-income red-staters give the most. A federal government that confiscates the fruits of labor of the producers to "distribute" (a term that should be offensive to all decent Americans) to the non-producers is a government that is paving the road to Hell with good intentions.

    Look, we all want to help the less fortunate among us...some of us (red-staters) more so than others (blue-staters), at least when it comes to putting one's money where one's mouth is. One of the main difference between liberals and conservatives is how best to achieve such an admirable goal. Libs want more government, non-libs want more citizen (i.e. private) participation.

    Also, like Kinsley says, libs believe that it is the role of government to "mitigate" such (perceived or real) unfairness "to a reasonable extent." Who gets to define what "reasonable" is? Not Clinton, since he doesn't even know how to define "is"...but I digress.

    Seriously, who defines "reasonable"? To me, affirmative action is no longer a "reasonable" response to discrimination, past or present...yet there are judges that shove this bigoted policy down our throats! Is that what Kinsley means by mitigation to "a reasonable extent"? Since he's pro-AA, I'd say that yes, it is EXACTLY what he means.

    These are the people that must be stopped. Let them be wrong in the op-eds, at the dinner table or family reunion, or over a game of checkers...just don't let them into power to implement their demonstrably-failed ideology into law.

    Saturday, November 27, 2004

    'Unfit for Command' Author Considers Challenging Kerry in Senate Race

    Woo-hoo, what fun this would be! From NewsMax:

    John Kerry's nightmarish challenge by his Swift Boat veterans and their allies may not be over.

    NewsMax recently chatted with Jerry Corsi, the co-author with Swiftee John O'Neill of "Unfit for Command" - the runaway New York Times best seller that torpedoed Kerry's presidential campaign.

    Attending a conference in the suburbs of Washington recently, Corsi let it be known that he is actively considering a run against Sen. Kerry when his term is up.

    Corsi is not a Massachusetts native, but says he has already scouted for property to declare his residence there.

    He appeared excited about the challenge. Federal law allows him to declare his candidacy at any time and open up a full fusillade against the Senate's most liberal member.

    Corsi thinks his criticisms of Kerry will be well received in the state that elected Republican Mitt Romney. Even Bush fared better in Massachusetts in 2004 against its home state candidate than he did against Gore in 2000.

    Corsi also notes that his Italian-Irish ancestry will give him an edge in a state given to ethnic voting. Kerry is neither Irish nor Italian, Corsi notes.

    As word has circulated about a possible candidacy, Corsi says he has been flooded with e-mails of support.

    Corsi said he has read news reports that Kerry is considering a lawsuit against him, O'Neill and the Swift Boat Vets.

    Presumably the suit would be for defamation. The New York Post's Page Six quoted a top aide to Kerry saying the senator would need to file such a suit if he has any prayer of making a presidential bid in 2008. Incredibly, Kerry is said to be considering such a run.

    Corsi said he and O'Neill have discussed the possibility of the lawsuit, and both said they might offer to pay Kerry for the FedEx charges to serve them with any court papers.

    "Quote me: Bring it on!" Corsi said with a chuckle.

    Media collective yawn at Zarqawi's admission

    So al Zarqawi admits that their stand at Fallujah was a major failure, and that the "infidels" have him and his terrorist network on the ropes. The MSM in this country buries the good news...naturally.

    Full story, including The Decapitator's own words, here.

    Folks, we are winning. Do not ever let the MSM or the left (forgive the redundancy) tell you otherwise.

    Media collective yawn at Zarqawi's admission

    So al Zarqawi admits that their stand at Fallujah was a major failure, and that the "infidels" have him and his terrorist network on the ropes. The MSM in this country buries the good news...naturally.

    Full story, including The Decapitator's own words, here.

    Folks, we are winning. Do not ever let the MSM or the left (forgive the redundancy) tell you otherwise.

    Friday, November 26, 2004

    Godless liberals

    No, I'm not saying that all (or even most) liberals are atheist or agnostic. That would be untrue, and disingenuous of me to assert such. Granted, their failed policies can be argued as such, but most of us who know any liberals can probably attest that they do believe in God.

    Well, I had the misfortune of being accosted by a foreigner who not only is a socialist, but also ridiculed my belief in God. I won't give this person any more notoriety, but it did bring to mind an observation on my part:

    Have you ever known an atheist who loved life?

    Think about it. Most times, whether you know an atheist or you see them on TV (such as an ACLU attorney or granola-eating, green-tea-sipping, burlap-wearing enviro-weenie), don't they just seem like the most miserable people in the world?

    Rarely do you meet one who simply accepts that you believe in God and he/she does not. I have known but two such people. One is a dear friend of mine on the Left Coast, who is not of faith but accepts that I am and does not marginalize me for it. Another is a girl I dated when I first got to FSU, and while she is not of faith, she also never attempted to make me feel foolish for having faith in God.

    Aside from those two, nearly every atheist/agnostic I've ever had the misfortune of meeting has been such a horribly unhappy wretch. Those people are the ones who are hostile to us for having the temerity to believe in God.

    I wonder why.

    Actually, I know why...I just felt like closing on a rhetorical note! :) Anyway, God bless everyone!!! LOL

    More on the Ohio recount

    Yes, the Ohio recount will soon be under way. While Kerry has kept a low profile and has sandbagged expectations of an overturning of results, he has no doubt not discouraged the peon third-party candidates from doing his dirty work.

    Of course, this has triggered more than conspiracy theories. It has also triggered requested recounts in New Hampshire, and possibly Florida. Take it from this Floridian...there is no reason to think that 350,000 votes (Bush's margin of victory in FL) will be overcome by a single vote. Florida went from being the laughingstock of the world in 2000, to a model of how to properly administer an election. The optical scanner machines, and even the liberal-derided touch screen machines, are near flawless...and what individual cases of errors exist (almost exclusively human-induced), they certainly can't account for Kerry's convincing defeat here.

    As for Ohio, I'm not sweating it in the slightest, especially since any recount results won't be released until after Ohio certifies the results. Seems stupid, sure, but that's what those attention-starving third-party guys want.

    Oh, yeah...I almost forgot. Full story here.

    Thursday, November 25, 2004

    Happy Thanksgiving!

    I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving! We have so much to be thankful for in this country, so let us reflect on that today.

    As such, I will not be posting today (barring any monumental news that can't wait for tomorrow). Until then, enjoy the day!

    Wednesday, November 24, 2004

    Dem Congresswoman: Media "no longer in our hands"

    Boy, talk about stepping in it! Hat tip to King Blogger himself, aka Instapundit:

    THE FINAL WORD ON RATHERGATE, I think, is found in this statement from Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) on Wolf Blitzer's CNN program: "The media certainly is not in our hands any longer."

    Funny...the MSM (mainstream media) hasn't got the memo yet, Ms. Sanchez! Granted, though, I actually agree with you on this one!

    Republican wins Washington state governor race, but...

    Leave it to a Democrat to be unsatisfied with a losing election result, and request yet another recount. For those who haven't followed, here's the condensed version.

    Election Day ended for most folks on Wednesday, Nov. 3. Washington state had a gubernatorial race that was tight. The final tally was that the GOP won by about 160 votes or so, out of 2.8 million votes cast. All absentee ballots and provisional ballots (the ones ruled eligible to be counted) were tallied, and the GOP won by about 260 votes. By law, the state had a machine recount. The GOP won again, though this time...by a mere 42 votes!

    Wow...only 42 votes! Anyway, the Dem is now requesting a hand recount. To be fair, I guess I can see why. When you're that close, you want to make sure it's correct.

    Awww...who am I kidding? This is a liberal who lost, therefore she's attempting to engineer a theft of a close election! You watch...she'll be challenging the hell out of the GOP votes, to get them rejected!

    Full story is here.

    "Red states" more free than "blue states"

    No surprise there. Pacific Research Institute’s “U.S. Economic Freedom Index: 2004 Report,” published in association with Forbes magazine, figures in more than 100 variables in calculating economic freedom, including regulatory and fiscal burdens imposed on residents.

    The report, written by Ying Huang and Robert E. McCormick of Clemson University and Lawrence J. McQuillan of PRI, shows how more economic freedom leads to more economic security. Such findings are a wake-up call to old-fashioned politicians who still want voters to believe that more government and less liberty means more economic security.

    In order, America's top 5 most free states: Kansas, Colorado, Virginia, Idaho and Utah. All Bush states.

    In order, America's top 5 least free states: New York, California, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Illinois. All Kerry/Gore states.

    The index shows that the 25 states with above-average freedom include only two “blue” states, New Hampshire (which Kerry barely won and Bush won in 2000) and Delaware. The 25 subpar states included 17 Kerry states.

    Kathleen Willey to Hillary: Beware the Swifties

    Kathleen Willey has a heads-up warning for Shrillary should she plan on running for president in 2008: Remember the Swiftboat Vets' successful tactics this year.

    From NewsMax:

    When Hillary Clinton runs for president, she may have to face her own version of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth - in the form of her husband's accusers, the women the Clintons have been trying to erase from the national memory of Bill's presidency.

    Reacting to Sen. Clinton's efforts to use the opening of her husband's presidential library last week as a springboard for her campaign for president, star impeachment witness Kathleen Willey told NewsMax, "I have some words of advice for the former first lady: Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

    Willey said she was struck by the fact that the Clinton library offers visitors a record of the ex-president's schedule for each day of his administration.
    "I wonder what would happen if November 29, 1993 at 2:30 p.m. was researched," she said. "That was the fateful day, the day on which my life was forever changed, the day I went to see him about a paying job. I need not go into any further detail."

    Willey suspects she's been written out of the script as part of the Clintons' ongoing efforts to rewrite history, along with Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Dolly Kyle Browning and other key impeachment witnesses. "We just DO NOT exist!" in the Clintons' version of events, she lamented.

    But just like John Kerry's former Swift Boatmates, the Clinton accusers could come back to haunt Hillary when her presidential bid gets under way.

    Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, indeed.

    Norfolk paper bans Michelle Malkin

    For those who don't know, Michelle Malkin is an Asian conservative columnist. I'm pretty sure I recall hearing that she's Filipino. Her latest column is here. It's short, and it best reflects her intellect, as well as her observant AND oftentimes humorous style of writing.

    Anyway, the Norfolk daily paper has banned her columns...which is interesting, considering that the city of Norfolk is mostly conservative, with the military base being there. Further proof that the media uber-elite is far removed from media consumers, and in the case of the Norfolk paper, far removed.

    The full story is here: link.

    Basically, a reader of the op-eds got mad and asked the editors to ban future columns. Consider it done. Their rationale? Virginian-Pilot editorial board member Bronwyn Lance Chester, who went so far as to invoke Malkin's race, sums it up thusly: "She’s an Asian Ann Coulter. ... She says outrageous things just to get TV appearances and book deals. She’s the worst of what’s wrong with punditry today. She adds absolutely nothing to genuine political discourse.” Of course, Chester had a column recently that was entitled "For country’s sake, 'liberal' shouldn’t be a slur." For WHOSE sake??

    The Asian Ann Coulter? Is that supposed to be insightful, or maybe funny, or an attempt at a "put her in her place" cutdown?

    I've done my part to voice my disgust at their bigotry and their bias. Chester can be reached at bronwyn.chester@pilotonline.com. Marvin Lake, the public editor over the editorial department, can be reached at marvin.lake@pilotonline.com. They've heard from me...let them hear from you, too.

    Tuesday, November 23, 2004

    Why the end of the election is NOT the end of the fight!

    The fight against liberalism rages on, and the following situation illustrates this point clearly...along with the point that the MSM still does NOT get it! They continue with their bias, refusing to see how they contributed to the demise of Kerry and the rest of the Dems who ran in '04.

    Gallup poll: Bush is at 55% job approval and they say here that this is "his best job rating since last January."

    NYT headline: "Americans Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda." Story here. It's a result of a CBS/NYT poll (CBS aka "See? B.S. !"). And a loaded push-poll at that.

    See, folks? The battle rages on, and the education continues! As long as there is a clueless MSM, people like me will always have something to flap our gums about.

    Dan Blather signing off

    Looks like the poster boy for media bias is calling it a career. Full story here.

    I don't know if the forged Bush National Guard documents had anything to do with it. Knowing CBS brass, I doubt it. I'd like to think it hastened his retirement, but I won't give the MSM that much credit.

    I do disagree vehemently with the NY columnist who said "It must be frustrating for a guy like this who has spent 24 years doing this and building up his career to be tainted by an event that he didn't have control over." He had no control over it? For the love of Pete, he refused to do any verification at all, passed the buck to the producer, ferociously defended the clearly discredited forgeries, impugned his detractors instead of answering their allegations...and to this day, still maintains that the documents are real. And yet Rather was some sort of innocent bystander here?

    If you want a littany of examples of Rather's biased reporting over the years, there's an e-shrine dedicated to such a littany: RatherBiased.com .

    Monday, November 22, 2004

    Kerry: bin Laden video sunk me!

    Despite evidence that shows the OBL tape had virtually no impact on the electorate, Kerry asserts that the tape cost him the election. Libs thought it would help Kerry, but were wrong...so will they now pull a Kerry and flip-flop, saying that the Bush team leaked the video before the election in order to help W win?

    From NewsMax.com:

    Failed presidential candidate John Kerry is blaming Osama bin Laden for "scaring" voters into re-electing President Bush.

    Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera caught up to Kerry on Thursday in Little Rock, Ark., where he was attending the opening of the Clinton Presidential Library.

    "Tough luck, senator," Rivera said to Kerry, referring to his Election Day defeat.
    According to Rivera, Kerry replied:

    "It was that Osama tape — it scared them [the American people]."

    Kerry told the Fox host that the terror master's October surprise came too late - just four days before the vote - for him to counter.

    "Senator Kerry clearly believes not only is it the security issue that cost him the election, but very specifically the Osama tapes coming out in the 11th hour," Rivera reported Friday.

    The bin Laden tape echoed attacks by Kerry and other Democrats on President Bush, including references to the disputed Florida election in 2000, Halliburton and a scene from Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

    At the time, Democrats said the video would likely help Kerry, because it would remind Americans that Bush had failed to capture bin Laden.

    Give that Marine a medal!

    This gem from Libertarian talk radio host Neal Boortz:

    Remember that marine who shot an Islamofascist (affectionately referred to by our left-wing MSM as "insurgent") in Fallujah last week? He thought that the Islamic terrorist might be playing dead and could pose a threat. You leftist pro-Saddam nutbars out there will never be convinced, but for those of you have honest doubts about this Marine and what he did, here's another one. This insurgent was playing dead ... right up until the time he pulled out his gun.

    Friday, November 19, 2004

    The Folklore of Election '04

    From Neal Boortz:

    The current issue of Time has a small piece entitled "The Folklore of Election '04". Frankly, I'm a bit surprised Time even printed this piece. It shatters some of the popular excuses offered by Democrats for their loss. Some examples:

    • Did those pesky Christians show up in overwhelming numbers to defeat the Godless Democrats? Nope. A Democratic pollster shows that the percentage of voters in 2004 who attend church regularly was 42%. That's exactly the same as the percentage who voted in 2000.

    • Was the election all about moral standards? Some 22% of voters cited morals as a reason for their vote. Iraq and terrorism were cited by 34% of the voters.

    • The election was stolen. How did Bush win those Florida counties where the majority of the voters are registered Democrats? Oops. It seems that those Florida counties have been voting for Republican presidents for decades.

    Oh well ... I suppose the Democrats and the left will keep trying to come up with excuses. Anything is better than admitting that you were simply rejected by the American people.

    Clinton throws temper tantrum in front of Peter Jennings

    Bill Clinton is a little paranoid these days. He thinks everyone is out to get him, and during an interview exchange with Peter Jennings of ABC News, he accused Jennings of leading the attack dog pack against him back in 1998 - 99.

    What? Jennings was one of Clinton's biggest defenders! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

    The full exchange:

    JENNINGS (Discussing rankings by presidential historians]: They gave you a forty-first in terms of moral authority - after Nixon.

    CLINTON: They're wrong about that. You know why they're wrong about it? They're wrong about it.

    JENNINGS: Why, sir?

    CLINTON: Because we had $100 million spent against us in all these inspections . . . In spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I have let the American people down. And I had more support from the world when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care about what they think.

    JENNINGS: Oh, yes you do.

    CLINTON: They have no idea . . .

    JENNINGS: Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply.

    CLINTON (through angry squint): No, no. I care. I care. You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what your people did. And the way you - your network - what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he did. No one has any idea of what that's like.

    Thursday, November 18, 2004

    Why Kerry lost Iowa

    Articles are out today showing that Bush has "unofficially" won Iowa. Uhhh...didn't we know that already? Anyway, the Des Moines Register has a great column. They say , then they list a few reasons. I'll give only the last two, which in my view, are the most telling and the most important:

    • Elitist images. Related to this is an image issue. Elitism. Too many on the left have a snooty, we-know-better attitude. They post Internet images of Bush states as "Jesusland." You can hear it as they grumble over the outcome and complain about how stupid people are. It's a turnoff. Having rock-star celebrities touring the country for their candidate may appeal to the elites, but it also signals to other voters a message about their candidate.

    • Kerry himself. He wasn't as good a messenger as he needed to be. From his windsurfing to his left-of-center Senate voting record to his avant-garde wife, everything worked to make the reserved New Englander seem strange to many - a guy who just didn't relate to many people.

    For example, in Polk County, Kerry defeated Bush by only 9,400 votes. That's not nearly the margin a Democrat needs out of Iowa's largest county to offset rural Republican votes and win a statewide election. But Democratic Congressman Leonard Boswell defeated his Republican challenger, Stan Thompson, by almost 26,600 votes in the county.

    Boswell got 7,100 more votes than Kerry in Iowa's largest county. In other words, thousands of people who voted for Bush then crossed over to vote for Boswell.

    Leonard doesn't windsurf.

    If he does, he keeps it to himself.


    Coulter on "The Loss that Keeps on Giving!"

    Brilliant and hilarious, as usual, from Ann Coulter. A couple of excerpts below, but please read the column in its entirety:

    As we wait for CBS to concede the election, Democrats are claiming Kerry lost because Americans are stupid – and if there's one thing voters respond to, it's crude insults.

    This is not only the first step of a brilliant strategy to win the red states back, but also inconsistent with the Democrats' theory that Bush was an illegitimate president for the last four years because Democratic voters in Florida were too dumb to follow an arrow to the circle by Al Gore's name. How stupid were the alleged Gore-supporters who couldn't figure out how to cast a vote in the 2000 election?


    Garry Wills – who fills in "occupation" on his federal tax return with "self-hating Catholic" – denounced America in the New York Times as an unenlightened nation full of people who believe "more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution."

    By contrast, apparently, "enlightened" people believe in the Aborted Birth more fervently than they believe in national defense. And just in the interest of fairness here, Garry: At least there's some documentation on the Virgin Birth story. For people who believe so fervently in evolution, these Bush mandate-deniers sure are resistant to it on a personal level.

    On the same day, on the same nuanced Times editorial page, both Wills and Maureen Dowd wrote that Kerry was defeated by a "jihad" of Christians. The jihadists, according to Wills, were driven by "fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity." Dowd said they were "a devoted flock of evangelicals, or 'values voters,' as they call themselves ... opposing abortion, suffocating stem-cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage." Finally – a jihad liberals oppose!


    One depressed Kerry voter committed suicide at Ground Zero. Meanwhile, the entire Democratic Party is also contemplating political suicide by making Howard Dean its next chairman.

    Some Democrats are so despondent they've contemplated (hushed whisper) prayer. They're just not sure if they're supposed to pray to Bill Clinton or to their "Higher Power."


    Again, puh-LEEZE read the column!

    Arkansas trailer trash

    That's what the Clintons are, and more specifically, Bill Clinton. He defined his legacy with a stained blue dress, cop-a-feels on women he wasn't married to, and perjury...to name but a scant few.

    So now he has his own presidential library, and he's using it not for historical purposes...but for petty, childish, and myopic purposes. Specifically, for settling old scores.

    This is not unexpected, of course. His memoirs (isn't it funny that a man who always testified that he didn't recall saying or doing anything can publish "memoirs"?) were nothing more than gratuitous PR work to try and rehab his disgraced image. So why shouldn't we expect the same when it comes to his library? For this man, it's always been about him!

    Apparently the exhibits repeatedly take aim at Newt Gingrich, and one characterizes his impeachment this way: "The impeachment battle was not about the Constitution or the rule of law, but was instead a quest for power that the president's opponents could not win at the ballot box." Oh really? That sounds so neat and tidy, doesn't it? The problem is, it's a lie. The impeachment battle was about a sitting president of the United States lying under oath.

    Here's the Cliff Notes version: Bill Clinton made a huge deal .. big ceremony and all .. out of signing a piece of legislation that gave women who were victims of sexual harassment on the job access to the federal courts. He then lied under oath in order to deny a women who was subjected to sexual harassment on the job her access to the courts under the very law he had signed with so much fanfare. If you believe that a president should be allowed to commit perjury in order to deny a citizen access to legal process, then you are beyond hope.

    I think that Newt Gingrich's spokesperson pretty much got it right: "Why should anyone expect that a dishonest administration would produce an honest library? It looks like we have the first 'I pity me' presidential library." The library also has exhibits that attack Kenneth Starr, including one that says "Starr repeatedly expanded the scope of his investigation. Witnesses complained that Starr and his staff would threaten them with jail in an attempt to get them to change their stories. In January 1998, Starr began to look into the President's testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky." Another lie.... It was Janet Reno and a panel of judges repeatedly expanded the scope of his investigation, as the circle of corruption grew wider.

    Our cursory look at the Clinton library hasn't yet revealed any exhibits about Clinton raping Juanita Broaderick, or the sexual harassment of Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones. Yeah...keep looking. After all, Clinton has never personally denied raping Broaderick, so why not make it a part of the library exhibits? Maybe a bloody pillowcase. No blue dress, either. The most corrupt presidency in the history of the United States now has a library that is being used to settle political scores.

    Like I said...pure trailer trash. Note that damned near every person for whom he campaigned, that candidate lost. And though normal and decent America has since rejected him, Dems still treat him like a rock star...and wonder why they continue to lose elections!

    Wednesday, November 17, 2004

    Grotesque racism and bigotry by the left

    This just steams my hide royally! Words cannot describe how pissed off I am at the liberals in the media! Bias is one thing...but racism is another!

    You must go to RushLimbaugh.com to see this for yourself. Specifically, look at the cartoons done by liberals such as Oliphant and Danziger.

    What pisses me off about the overt racism is that if it were done by a conservative or libertarian, all of ever-loving HELL would break loose! I'm still waiting to hear from so-called "civil rights" leaders like Sharpton and Jesse (a couple of race-hustling poverty pimps).

    Oops...looks like I just used an insult that can be misconstrued as bigoted. Tell ya what: I'll retract that characterization of said pimps if either one comes out and denounces the racist overtones listed about Dr. Rice.

    Fat chance of that happening, huh?

    Sarin (a WMD) found during Operation Phantom Fury...where's the MSM?

    From Neal Boortz:

    If you use this link to visit the USA Today website you will be treated to a flash presentation of several pictures taken during the siege of Fallujah. Picture number two in this presentation shows 40 vials in boxes labeled "Sarin." That's sarin gas, my friends. One drop of this stuff on your skin can kill you. The boxes have Cyrillic and German characters on them, indicating they may have come from our good friends the Russians or the Germans. The caption under the photo reads "Marines discovered 40 vials of suspected Sarin gas while searching a house in Fallujah, Iraq. It was secreted in a briefcase hidden in a truck in the courtyard of the house."

    So ... there you go. Weapons of mass destruction. Chemical weapons. This Sarin gas could, with an effective application, kill thousands. And where do they find it? In a briefcase! A briefcase in a car trunk. And you wonder why our troops have had some difficulty finding Saddam's weapons? You still think inspections could have worked? Yeah, sure they would. The inspectors were going to look in every car trunk and every briefcase in Iraq.

    What you see in that picture is proof that the only way to even come close to neutralizing the threat that Saddam posed was to remove him from power. Nothing else was going to work.

    Meanwhile ... just watch the critics whistle past this one. If you don't mention the vials of Sarin gas, they just don't exist ... do they?

    Ohio WILL recount all ballots, but...

    ...it won't affect the outcome, since the recount will occur after the certification of the results, which was a Bush 136,000 vote win. Seems like the third-party guys raised more money for a recoun than they did for their campaigns. Dem contributions, anyone?

    Story below (link here):

    A statewide recount of the presidential vote appears inevitable after a pair of third-party candidates said they have collected enough money to pay for it.

    The recount would be conducted after the election results are certified in early December.

    Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party's David Cobb said on Monday they raised more than $150,000 in four days, mostly in small contributions.

    Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct for a recount, or $113,600 statewide.

    Badnarik and Cobb said they aren't trying to overturn President Bush's 136,000-vote victory in Ohio, but just want to ensure that all votes were counted properly in the face of concerns about Election Day irregularities.

    "Our bottom line is to stand up for the integrity of the voting process because the voting process is the heart of the democratic process," said Blair Bobier, spokesman for Cobb.

    Bobier said it will be worth the price to ensure the final outcome can be trusted.

    Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, said the actual cost to county election boards combined will be about $1.5 million.

    Tuesday, November 16, 2004

    That mean ol' Rush, terrorizing traumatized victims!

    You have to read this to believe it. It's in the Boca Raton newspaper, which makes the level of outrage by the liberals even funnier.

    Here's an excerpt, but please, read the whole article here:

    Mental health officials in South Florida blasted Rush Limbaugh on Monday, saying the conservative talk show host’s offer of “free therapy” for traumatized John Kerry voters has made a mockery of a valid psychological problem.

    “Rush Limbaugh has a way of back-handedly slamming people,” said Sheila Cooperman, a licensed clinician with the American Health Association (AHA) who listened Friday as Limbaugh offered to personally treat her patients. “He’s trying to ridicule the emotional state this presidential election produced in many of us here in Palm Beach County. Who is he to offer therapy?”

    The Boca Raton News reported last week that more than 30 distraught Kerry supporters in South Florida contacted the non-profit AHA following their candidate’s Nov. 3 concession to President Bush. AHA officials have diagnosed the disorder as Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST) and have scheduled the first of several free group therapy sessions for just after Thanksgiving.

    PEST? A "valid psychological problem"? Maybe voting for Kerry (as well as for liberals in general) should be classified as a "valid psychological problem"!

    Man, what a nation of wussies we are becoming! Well, not really "we"...just despondent liberals!

    George Will: Liberals' belief in American stupidity

    I'm in good company again. George Will notes how liberals believe that the majority of Americans are idiots, and this belief makes them feel better about their own detachedness...which they mistake for "intellectual superiority."

    An excerpt (full column here):

    A small but significant, because articulate, sliver of the Democratic Party seems to relish interpreting the party's defeat as validation. This preening faction reasons as follows: the re-election of George W. Bush proves that 51 percent of the electorate are homophobic, gun-obsessed, economically suicidal, antiscience, theocratic dunces. Therefore to be rejected by them is to have one's intellectual and moral superiority affirmed.

    This insult directed at the electorate must appall most Democrats, who would prefer to be validated by victories. But disdain for the judgment of average Americans now colors various aspects of American life.

    This disdain for normal America has been flourishing for quite some time, although note how the left likes to point to Clinton's two terms and above-average approval ratings as proof that Americans were smart enough to see through partisan rhetoric about Billary! For some reason, when Bush enjoys average to above-average ratings and a more sound re-election result than Clinton had in 1996...well, NOW all of a sudden, the same once-before intelligent American electorate has been transformed into a collective of imbeciles. Funny how that works when the numbers don't support your guy!

    Hillary in 2008

    Much has been made of Hillary running for President in 2008. Personally, I think 2006 is going to be a more important year for her. It's when she runs for re-election for her Senate seat.

    Here are some scenarios for '06:

    1. She doesn't run for re-election. Too risky, since it would keep her out of the limelight for over a year, which will dim her star.

    2. She runs against Rudy Giuliani...and loses. Her ambitions for President die with her failed re-election bid.

    3. She runs against Rudy Giuliani...and wins. She's a lock for the Dems' nomination for '08, having defeated a real New Yorker and a larger-than-life figure.

    4. She runs against someone other than Rudy...and loses. Her ambitions for President die with her failed re-election bid. This scenario is unlikely, I would think.

    5. She runs against someone other than Rudy...and wins. Even someone as popular as Gov. George Pataki, who probably still cannot beat her. She's a lock for the Dems' nomination for '08, having defeated a real New Yorker (and if it's Pataki, a popular executive).

    As a family friend pointed out to me yesterday, he thinks the American people are too smart to elect her. I'd like to think so, too, and if you asked me to put money on it, I would think she couldn't win...her negatives are way too high.

    But aside from the GOP nominee in 2008, much of the speculation will be fueled by what she does in 2006.

    Monday, November 15, 2004

    CBS fires producer...for interrupting "CSI: NY"

    No, not for forged documents. But for interrupting CSI:NY in order to report the death of terrorist Yasser Arafat.

    From NewsMax:

    Note to the employees of CBS: You won't be fired if you try to topple a Republican president with a fake story, but you will be fired if you disrupt a popular entertainment show because of a dead terrorist.

    CBS's so-called news division has booted the producer who cut off the ending of "CSI: NY" on Wednesday to announce the death of Muslim terrorist Yasser Arafat, according to a CBS exec.

    "The producer responsible ignored network policy to contact a senior executive before interrupting a regularly scheduled program for a news report, the source said," the Associated Press reported today.

    The network had to rerun the show Friday night after an outcry from viewers.

    Meanwhile, millionaire Democrat operative Dan Rather still hasn't been fired despite his latest scandal and despite plunging CBS "News" down the ratings toilet.

    Glad to do my part to screw the MSM!

    Michael Barone, the Godfather of American political science with his Almanac of American Politics, rightly slams the MSM (mainstream media) for its failures and complicity in this year's electoral gerrymandering attempts. Barone credits the New Media, among which is the blogosphere...i.e., me!

    An excerpt (full column here):

    Finally, consider the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story. Kerry strategists are now saying that Kerry should have responded to the Swifties' charges sooner. But they didn't because they were confident Old Media would bury the story. Which it did, for months, from the formation of the group in April, the publication of its book "Unfit for Command" and the TV ads that started running in the summer. Old Media loved the Kerry narrative (decorated hero returns from Vietnam and opposes the war) and didn't want to disturb it by airing the Swifties' charges.

    But the story got aired on New Media, the Swifties' book zoomed to No. 1 on amazon.com and Kerry responded to the charges on Aug. 19. Then Old Media had to cover the story, and while many stories brushed the Swifties' charges aside as "discredited," more careful examinations, as in The Washington Post, showed the charges had some substance.

    Kerry would have been better served, it turned out, by apologizing early on for his 1971 testimony that besmirched all troops in Vietnam. He could have done so in the spring when questioned by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," but decided not to. Memo to future Democratic nominees: You can no longer rely on Old Media to hush up stories that hurt your cause. Your friends in Old Media don't have a monopoly any more.

    Amen. Glad I could do my part to contribute to John Kerry's and Tom Daschle's "Electile Dysfunction"! I have no delusions of grandeur, so I know that my blog had little to do with the national mood on Election Day. I am but one fish in an ocean of millions. But I will not stop until liberalism is stamped out, and if that means taking on the liberal MSM, then I'm more than happy to do it.

    Sunday, November 14, 2004

    The 2004 county-by-county red/blue map

    I know, it's a little late, but someone did e-mail me about having not seen the map. You know, the map that shows all counties in the U.S. coded red (Bush) or blue (Kerry). It's a giant see of red with blue dots sprinkled here and there (admittedly most concentrated in New England).

    Here it is (opens new window): link

    Note how there are four states that had NO counties go for Kerry: Alaska, Utah, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. Kansas let us down, with one county going for Kerry. I'm guessing it's the one where Lawrence (a university town) is, but I don't know for certain. And there was actually a county in Wyoming that went for Kerry? I'm guessing Laramie, home of the only four-year college in the whole state.

    Also note how Missouri, for being a "swing" state, had three counties go for Kerry. It's the counties holding Kansas City (urban), St. Louis (urban), and Jefferson City (big government, state capital). Other than that, the rest of the state was all Bush.

    More on Olbermann's "Dan Rather moment"

    Finally, blogger.com is back up and will allow me to post this time!

    Heh! Looks like I'm not the only one who noticed Olbermann's use of debunked Internet innuendo and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logic in his eager reporting of a "stolen election" scoop. It's a scoop of something, all right!

    An excerpt from the Pittsburgh columnist Bill Steigerwald (full, and highly entertaining, story here):

    The recovering sportscaster is openly liberal and his irreverent, run-and-quip offense is easy to detest. But I kind of like him and his fast-paced infotainment show, which has the fatal misfortune to occupy the 8 p.m. time slot opposite Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor."

    Olbermann, however, really made a Dan Rather of himself last week.

    Here's another gem found a little later in the column:

    Olbermann had made a big sinister deal about 29 counties whose registered voters were predominantly Democrat "suddenly" voting "overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush." He slyly left the impression that massive vote-stealing could have been perpetrated by ballot tabulating companies like Diebold, whose bosses were known Bush allies.

    I called Baker County, Fla., Olbermann's first example. Yes, twanged the cheery election lady, 69 percent of voters in her rural county on the Georgia border are registered Democrat. Yes, "Mr. Boosh" got 78 percent of the vote and trounced Kerry, 7,738 to 2,180.

    This was nothing new or untoward, she said. Folks in Florida's Panhandle are conservative, especially on social and moral issues. They mostly register as Democrats and vote that way on local issues, but in national and state elections, they go Republican. Been doing so for years.

    Mr. "Boosh", huh? Hee-hee...it's true! I can attest to the Baker County example, since it borders my county to the west, and I've been there numerous times. It's a very conservative county, where they love God, country, and their armed forces; and where they detest liberalism to its core. Baker County is but one county of nearly all Southern and rural counties that may have lots of Democrats, but they've been off the plantation for a few decades now.

    Yes...those same counties voted the same way four years ago. This, of course, is further proof that the national Democratic party has no clue as to the voting patterns of Southern Democrats, especially in national elections. This detachment further perpetuates the national Dems' bewilderment and frustration, not to mention talks about secession.

    How sick of me to get off on watching the MSM's continued downward spiral! Remind me later to care, m'kay?

    Saturday, November 13, 2004

    Syrians see Arafat more clearly than Carter

    The quote is priceless (full story, though short, is here):

    The Syrian Defense Minister called Arafat "the son of sixty thousand whores," but Jimmy Carter called him "a powerful human symbol and forceful advocate" for a Palestinian homeland. Well, great minds can differ. I wonder if Jimmy is getting a cut.

    I know, it's hard to think that anyone feels this way about Arafat, considering the rock star praise and adulation that the MSM is heaping on him!

    Clintonistas sabotaged Kerry campaign?

    Most conservatives and libertarians knew that the Clintons, despite their public protestations to the contrary, did not want John Kerry to win the election. Yet for some reason, Kerry thought it would be a dandy idea to hire FOB's (Friends of Billary) to help run his campaign.

    Now, in the never-ending postmortem cycle, there seems to be some who are close to Kerry that have figured out Clinton's angle.

    An excerpt (full story here):

    "Behind the scenes, former President Clinton also kept up the drumbeat, telling Kerry in private conversations right to the end that he should focus on the economy rather than Iraq or the war on terror, and that he should come out in favor of all 11 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage — a move that would have been a political disaster for a candidate who had already been painted as an unprincipled flip-flopper."

    Yet another reason (among several others) that I'm glad Kerry lost. If he wasn't bright enough to see what all of us already knew (that Billary wanted him to lose), then he damned sure wasn't bright enough to run this country or be commander-in-chief.

    Friday, November 12, 2004

    "Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed"

    This headline is the latest in a line of condescension paraded by a disheartened Democrat party. If you wish to subject yourself to the screed, here it is:


    Aside from the obvious arguments about high taxes and how they're levied, I have to wonder:

    Since when are liberals suddenly against welfare?

    Rush touched on this today, so I'm in great company. But recall how liberals have always been the party of confiscating money away from the producers and transferring the money to the non-producers...all in the name of "compassion", naturally. Well, the purveyors of anti-individual and pro-group thinking are now all of a sudden taking the opposite mindset.

    Yes, now they finally see the light! It is now all of a sudden immoral to take money away from the producers (in this case, the blue states) and give it to the non-producers (in this case, the red states)! It was cool when middle-class citizens had the fruits of their labor confiscated to support crack whores in Philly who refused to work. But when rural states that happen to have moral values and love for family and tradition and country do not pay as much in taxes (because incomes are lower) as blue states (which never met taxes they didn't like), why that's just an abomination! But wait a minute...aren't liberals and Democrats supposed to be the champion of the lower-income families? I guess they are, as long as said families stay on the blue plantations!

    There, ladies and gentlemen, is further proof that these idiots are coming unglued...they're now railing against the things they've always championed! Does that mean we've always been right, hmmmmmmmm?

    Myth of the "Bigoted Christian Redneck"

    Charles Krauthammer has a great observation about the Dems' myopia of last week's election:

    In 1994, when the Gingrich revolution swept Republicans into power, ending 40 years of Democratic hegemony, the mainstream press needed to account for this inversion of the Perfect Order of Things. A myth was born. Explained a USA Today headline: "Angry White Men: Their votes turned the tide for the GOP." Overnight, the revolt of the Angry White Male became conventional wisdom.

    At the time, I looked into this story line and found not a scintilla of evidence to support it. Nonetheless, it was a necessary invention, a way for the liberal elite to delegitimize a conservative victory.

    Ten years and another Democratic defeat later, and liberals are at it again. The Angry White Male has been transmuted into the Bigoted Christian Redneck.

    But the fallback is then to attribute Bush's victory to the gay marriage referendums that pushed Bush over the top, particularly in Ohio. This is more nonsense. Bush increased his vote in 2004 over 2000 by an average of 3.1% nationwide. In Ohio, the increase was 1% - less than a third of the national average. In the 11 states in which the gay marriage referendums were held, Bush increased his vote by less than he did in the 39 states that did not have the referendum. The great anti-gay surge was pure fiction.

    This does not deter the myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck from dominating the thinking of liberals and from infecting the blue-state media. So once again they angrily claim the moral high ground, while standing in the ruins of yet another humiliating electoral defeat.

    Sure, like New Mexico, Ohio, North Dakota, Arizona, and Iowa (among many, many others) are known as bastions of rednecks, huh?

    "Sheeee-oot, Bubba! What say me and you go on down to Santa Fe and do some cow tippin'?"

    Or maybe: "Well, shet yer mouth, Bootsie Lou! If this here ain't the finest moonshine still in Tuscon, I don't have any idee what is!"

    Thursday, November 11, 2004

    "Kerry won!" Part II: Aided by MSM

    So the MSM is trying to come to Kerry's rescue by "merely investigating" vote totals in OH and possibly FL. Full story here:


    They're complaining that George Bush won some heavily Democratic counties in Florida. Do they have any proof of fraud? Nope. They're saying that there's no way a county with Democratic registrations as high as 70% could have gone to Bush. The only problem with that theory is that it has happened before. Ronald Reagan won that same support, as did Bush's father in 1988. As did Bush in 2000! So Bush won some heavily registered-Dem counties in 2000, and did it again in 2004. Last time, no questions. This time, in a more decisive win...well, you get it. So there's really no surprise there.

    A few Congressional Democrats have written the General Accounting Office asking for an investigation. George Bush won the election fair and square, but just as in 2000, the left can't stand the result, so they'll question the process.

    After all, no one in their right mind would vote for George W. Bush, would they?

    Ann Coulter sums up the nutcase conspiracy theory peddled by Keith Olbermann on his MSNBC show that no one watches:

    A quick glance at the Congressional Almanac indicates that all five counties in Olbermann's conspiracy theory are in the Florida Panhandle, where most people have been registered as Democrats since their grandfathers registered them to vote shortly after the Civil War. This is in contrast to Broward and Dade Counties, where the vast majority of voters entered their party registrations when they moved to Florida from New York a few years ago.

    As if anticipating Olbermann's idiotic conspiracy theory two years ago when he wrote the most recent almanac, Michael Barone specifically notes that these Panhandle counties – though still majority Democratic in party registrations – have been voting for Republicans for president for many years. This would include the 2000 presidential election when the three voting districts at the centerpiece of Olbermann's conspiracy theory voted for Bush by 69 percent, 66 percent and 57 percent. The only way Barone could have made this any clearer to the "Countdown" host would have been to begin the chapter, "Dear Keith Olbermann ..."

    There's no mystery, no scandal. These are what's known as "Southern Democrats," who have been voting Republican for a very, very, very long time. Most of them probably don't even realize they're registered as Democrats. These people are Democrats like Kevin Phillips is a Republican, like Ashlee Simpson is a singer.

    The only scandal is that a purported news program would raise insinuations of vote fraud based on the party registration of Southern Democrats living in the Florida Panhandle – without anyone at the show checking the Congressional Almanac. (It's especially attractive to be promoting a theory based on a lack of basic information, in the self-righteous, smug manner of Keith Olbermann.)

    No election in the United States can be discussed intelligently without reference to Michael Barone's Congressional Almanac. At any half-serious TV news station, the Congressional Almanac is as common as a phonebook.

    But at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann can go on air with the major breaking story that five conservative Democratic Panhandle counties voted for Bush, without one person on the show: (1) consulting the Congressional Almanac, (2) looking at the results of the 2000 election, or (3) apparently ever having heard of "Southern Democrats." (They're all Republicans now!)

    Thank you, Veterans!

    I would like to take a moment to wish all of our veterans a Happy Veterans Day today! Yes, that even includes John Kerry, who did serve his country...before turning around and betraying it. So, OK...upon further reflection, I don't care if Kerry has a happy Vets Day!

    People like my father, a USMC veteran of 20 years, deserve a day like this that honors their service. True, every day should be a day like that, so I have no qualms about setting aside a day that specifically and exclusively honors them. It is for reasons like honoring our servicemen and servicewomen that I cannot ever be a liberal. Libs hate the military and its people too much, so I will always have a reason to try to stamp out liberalism. Every time they insult our military, they insult Americans. I, for one, won't stand for it.

    Thank you for your contribution to the safety and security of our nation, Vets! We salute you!

    Wednesday, November 10, 2004

    Red states most charitable; blue states most stingy!

    This story typifies what we know about liberalism. Full story here.

    Basically, it states that of all the charitable giving done in America, the "red states" (you know, the ones that liberals deride as backwoods, uneducated, and selfish?) rank at the top of such giving. The blue states (you know, the enlightened, creative, and "compassionate" states?) rank dead last.

    The top six most generous states: Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee. Mississippi, a very conservative state, makes less money per capita than any state and is thus one of the poorest, yet is the most generous with it! How's that, huh? The least money, but the most giving with what little they have!

    The top five stingiest states (i.e. bottom five most generous): Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Connecticut, a very liberal state, makes more money per capita than any state, yet is the least generous with it.

    Do we see a pattern here?

    I recall that during the 2000 election, it was revealed that the Gores made over $800,000 and gave a piddly $348 to charity. The Cheneys made about $26 million, and gave over $2 million to charity.

    I also recall this year that John Kerry's wife reported her "income" in such a way that she wound up paying at the 12% tax rate...about half of MY rate (I make nowhere near what she does)! Kerry and his wife also opted out of paying any additional state income tax, though MA found itself in a budget bind. No, I don't think they should have had to pay beyond that which they are legally required. But they (along with the Gore example, along with countless others) prove my point, and the facts make the assertion indisputable:

    Liberals are really compassionate...with other people's money! Keep your filthy hands off of their money, though, while they are busy waxing philosophic at Manhattan dinner parties and Georgetown soirees about how you don't pay your "fair share"!

    Liberals try to make public policy based on theory, not reality. Living in theory is more pleasant to them than living in reality, since reality has time and again proven their ideology to be unsustainable and demonstrative failures. Thus, reality must be ignored, and theory must be wallowed in!

    Imbeciles! New Englanders and West Coasters, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves! And you cretins have the nerve to call red states "backwards"? At least they give a damn about their fellow man...much like liberal rhetoric purports to do (but whose actions betray their words)!

    Liberals: "Kerry won! Vote fraud in FL and OH!"

    I don't know why I didn't see this coming, but I didn't. Liberals are now swearing that Bush really didn't win FL or OH, due to a combination of equipment failure and voter fraud. Leave it to MSNBC (or as Rush calls it, PMSNBC) to try to run with it. Their problem is that even if their story were true, their audience is only about 13 people or so...so their crap can't go too far! Story here.

    Wasn't it Democrats in OH that were signing up voters like Mary Poppins and Peter Pan, and receiving pay in the form of crack cocaine? Wasn't it Democrats in Philly that had stuffed about 2,000 ballots in machines in Dem precincts before polls even opened? And those examples are just for this election!

    Let's not forget the Dems' pitiful history of vote fraud! How about the election of 1960? Democrats in Illinois and Texas were (a) turning up prior "missing" ballot boxes, stuffed to the tune of about 90% Democrat ballots; and (b) sinking ballot boxes from Republican precincts to the bottom of lakes and rivers.

    Or Election 2000? Liberal judges kept the polling sites open in St. Louis for two extra hours, before being overruled...but long enough to let more urban voters get a few thousand more votes in for Gore (didn't matter...he lost MO anyway). Homeless voters were bribed with packs of cigarettes in WI to go vote for Gore, and college students in Madison voted at several different precincts. The fact that you need a home address to vote notwithstanding, it worked...Gore squeaked out a 4,700 vote win in WI. Bush had won IA, until absentee ballots (which normally go about 2-1 Republican) were counted and handed Gore a 4,400 vote win in IA.

    And let's not even mention that while Gore was so piously calling to count "every" vote, he had two ambulance chasers in FL working to do the opposite. Tallahassee shyster Mark Herron was working feverishly to disqualify military ballots from overseas, while Orlando huckster Harry Jacobs was trying to have about 20,000 predominantly-GOP votes disqualified in Seminole and Martin counties because of a clerical error by elections workers. No, Dems think it's quite alright to count votes by homeless, dead, multiple, or convicted felon types (not to mention pets), but they fight like hell to make sure legitimate votes (especially by servicemen whom they would like to command) are not counted!

    So these damned hypocrites want to allege voter fraud? Not only are they dead wrong (since it would be hard to tamper with over 120,000 votes in OH and 300,000+ in FL that reflected Bush's winning margins), but they have a lot of gall!

    SOME Brits do get it, and they nail liberals on it!

    From the U.K.'s Telegraph:

    Now the aggrieved, "disfranchised" of New York and Los Angeles - cheered on by their friends in Britain - are saying that the American electorate is bigoted, reactionary and stupid. In Thatcherite Britain, they said that the voters were selfish, reactionary and stupid. Left-wing intellectuals, of course, are never, ever wrong. Nothing - absolutely nothing - ever causes them to question their own beliefs. It is the rest of the world that is out of step. And the rest of you - the great democratic mass of people who have the temerity to think your own thoughts and come to your own conclusions - are scarcely worthy of the franchise.

    Democracy is suitable only for the enlightened - which is to say for people who accept the assumptions of the Guardian/BBC world view. If you cannot produce the right result in an election - even after you have been told very clearly by everybody from Robert Redford to Michael Moore what to think - then you are beneath contempt, and we are licensed by the household gods of liberal ideology to call you names. (On Radio 4's News Quiz last week, Jeremy Hardy described Bush and his followers as "stupid, crazy, ignorant, bellicose Christian fundamentalists". Presumably, by BBC logic, this does not constitute bigotry but wit.)

    It's nice to see someone from across the pond who recognizes the arrogance and cluelessness of American (and European) liberals. Throw in some British sarcasm, and this made for some entertaining reading!

    Tuesday, November 09, 2004

    Ferraro's condescension & ignorance exposed

    Geraldine Ferraro, who as you may recall was on the ticket with Walter Mondale in 1984 in the biggest Election Day defeat in U.S. history (lost 49 states), had the temerity to say on Hannity and Colmes the other night that blue states produced the most "talent" and "creativity", and that red states would be "nothing" without the blue states.

    So no real talent comes from red states, hmm? Let's look at some, especially some liberal champions:

    Oprah Winfrey? Mississippi.
    Martin Sheen? Ohio (Dayton).
    Ed Asner? Missouri (Kansas City)
    Marlon Brando? Nebraska (Omaha).
    Warren Beatty? Virginia (Richmond).
    Mrs. Warren Beatty, Annette Bening? Kansas (Topeka).
    Johnny Carson? Nebraska.
    David Letterman? Indiana.
    Dan Rather? Texas (assuming the birth certificate is authentic).
    Tom Brokaw? South Dakota.

    Ella Fitzgerald? Virginia (Newport News).
    Nat King Cole? Alabama.
    Elvis? Tupelo, Mississippi and Memphis, Tennessee.
    Bo Diddly? Mississippi.
    John Mellencamp? Indiana.
    Rush Limbuagh? Missouri (Cape Girardeau).
    Warren Buffet? Nebraska (Omaha).
    Helen Gurley Brown? Arkansas.

    From Rush:

    The great secret about this country is that it is its heartland. Do you think it's any wonder that most people born in the mid-south or the Midwest or the upper Midwest happen to go on to become nationally known in their fields? I've always thought there's something about the values that you're taught with when you grow up in the Midwest help you to relate to the whole country, or at least that part of the country that matters. The red states.

    Dems hate Americans?

    A question was asked by some twit named Jane Smiley at Slate.com: Why do Americans hate Democrats? Lawrence F. Kaplan at the New Republic seems to think it's because Democrats hate Americans.

    I may spend the next few days chronicling nothing but liberal disdain for America. I'll try not to, since it would get stale here. But as Dems perform their biennial postmortem, much of their self-reflection eventually turns into their true colors being shown: their unmistakable and unshakeable belief that they're just so much smarter than you are.

    When you voted for Bill Clinton, you were smart. When you voted for Bush, you weren't. And so it goes...

    Anyway, here's Kaplan's piece in the New Republic. I'd give you the link, but they make you register just to read their online content.

    The day after the election, a friend--okay, my father--phoned to let me know me he was packing his bags for Australia. The very thought of enduring four more years of George W. Bush was too much for him to contemplate. And so it went last week, as a parade of friends and relatives, knowing full well that I supported Bush, phoned and emailed to deplore the country's ignorance. Echoing a question posed by Slate, they asked: Why do so many Americans hate Democrats? Maybe, just maybe, the answer has something to do with the fact that so many Democrats seem to hate them.

    Novelist Jane Smiley's contribution to the Slate symposium is instructive: "The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. ... Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states. ... The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America." Nor have such expressions of contempt been confined to fiction writers. The ever-reliable New York Times columnist Paul Krugman opined that "Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, minority rights)" while across the page Gary Wills likened Bush voters to Al Qaeda operatives and Saddam loyalists. "Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity?" he wondered.

    None of this, to be sure, comes as anything new. In 1972 film critic Pauline Kael famously said: "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." Over a decade later, E.L. Doctorow observed of Reagan-era America that "something poisonous has been set loose in the last several years ... something that is really rotten in America right now." During the 1990s, it was the Republicans' turn, as commentators on the right bemoaned the moral failings of an America that refused to demand the ouster of its philandering president. There is a word for this sort of condescension, and it isn't fear, concern, or anxiety about the impulses of Middle America. It is anti-Americanism.

    The concept, Paul Hollander writes in his encyclopedic 1992 survey of anti-Americanism, "implies more than a critical disposition: it refers to critiques which are less than fully rational and not necessarily well founded." Critics of red America, needless to say, fancy themselves defenders of rationality. Or as Nation writer Eric Alterman puts it on his Altercation blog: "The problem is just this: Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the 'reality-based community' say or believe about anything." Neatly summarizing the views of this "reality-based community," Kerry volunteer Jessica Johnson of Cambridge, Massachusetts told The Boston Globe: "Many Americans have nothing between their ears. Americans are fat, lazy, and stupid. I don't like this country anymore."

    If this is what passes for rational discourse on the left--and for too many liberals these days, it is--then just who is it that belongs to the "reality-based community" and just who is it that suffers under the weight of what the left used to call "false consciousness"? The question merits an answer, since Wills and otherwise sensible voices on the left--such as The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, who professes himself "alarmed that so many of our fellow citizens could look the other way and not hold Bush accountable for utter incompetence in Iraq" and "amazed that a majority was not concerned about heaping a huge debt burden on our children just to give large tax breaks to the rich"--see their task as raising the level of consciousness of Americans out of step with reality. But what if their own estrangement leads not to insight, but rather to blindness and, more important, to separation from the very Americans they mean to influence?

    To be alienated these days, after all, is what Todd Gitlin once described as "a rock-bottom prerequisite for membership" in an establishment of its own. That establishment, comprising much of the media, academia, the punditocracy, and indeed entire swaths of blue America, forms a cohesive community--with its own rewards, norms, and favorite enemies. And as the post-election commentary has revealed, one of those enemies happens to be mainstream America. The conceit, of course, is that none of its residents are listening when the likes of Smiley craps all over them. But they are, and have been all along. Moreover, as nearly every election going back to 1968 shows, the more liberals become estranged from Middle America, the more Middle America becomes estranged from them. The latter reaction, needless to say, generates far more votes. So long as the "reality-based community" denigrates the heartland's supposed ignorance, reality-based America will respond in kind.

    Blue states want to secede from union

    We should be so lucky:


    Note, again, the level of hate and vitriol that comes from the mouths of the supposed "compassionate" party. "Rednecks in Oklahoma" and the "homophobic knuckle-draggers in Wyoming"?

    Please, keep it up, liberals! I smell another 1 - 3% fleeing from you in 2008!

    By the way, Kerry himself had such contempt for red states, specifically the South. He said during the primaries that Dems "make a mistake by looking South" for votes. He pointed out that Al Gore came within 7,200 votes in NH of winning in 2000, without a single Southern state. Translation: "Drop dead, rednecks!" The strategy failed Gore, and it failed Kerry. Any other liberals want to try that as a campaign tactic in 2008?

    Monday, November 08, 2004

    Which pollsters won and lost with pre-election polls?

    We were inundated with polls up until Election Day. Here is a link to an article (with explanations) about which polls were the winners and losers. In other words, who was close to accurate with their polls, and who was way off? The link has the entire result set (not long to read), but here are a couple of note:

    Winners: Battleground, Pew.
    Predictions: Bush 51.2, Kerry 47.8.
    Result: Exactly right.

    Semi-winner: CBS/NYT (assuming the polls weren't forged)
    Predictions: Bush by 3%
    Result: Margin right, though they failed to allocate undecideds.

    Loser: Gallup.
    Predictions: 49-49, with Kerry getting between 90 - 100% of undecideds!
    Result: Way off, though they would have been right if they had allocated undecideds 50/50 (as they actually went).

    Loser: Fox News (sorry, guys).
    Predictions: 48-46, with Kerry winning.
    Result: Off by 5%...WAY off!

    BIG Loser: Zogby

    Commentary by RCP on Zogby:

    As we all know, Zogby had been on record for months saying that Kerry was going to win this race. Despite his final tracking poll that put Bush ahead by one point nationally, Zogby's polling at the state level reflected his belief that Kerry was going to be the beneficiary of huge turnout - especially among the youth vote. The result is that Zogby missed three of the eleven states he polled in (FL, IA, and NM), had a relatively high error rate across the board (3.8%), and his numbers generally skewed in favor of John Kerry.

    Adding insult to injury, Zogby's bizarre election day antics calling for "surprises" in Colorado and Virginia and a decisive 311 electoral vote victory for Kerry suggest he was relying on (not to mention taken in by) the badly skewed early exit poll data.

    Let's be honest: Zogby's conduct this year bordered on outrageous. No other independent pollster was out making public predictions of a John Kerry or George W. Bush victory months before hand. And no other pollster decided to wait until 5:30pm Eastern time on election day to post their final numbers.

    Condescending liberals

    The mission statement of my blog states, in part, that my goal is to educate "America to the pitfalls and perils of the 'feeling, but not thinking'" ideology known as liberalism. Part of that education process is to point out consistently what the left thinks of you, the average American voter. I mentioned an example in a previous posting of mine (link here).

    Mark Steyn has a column that even better illustrates this contempt. An excerpt:

    If you don't want to bother plowing your way through Alterman and Smiley, a placard prominently displayed by a fetching young lad at the post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco cut to the chase: "F--- MIDDLE AMERICA."

    Almost right, man. It would be more accurate to say that "MIDDLE AMERICA" has "F---ed" you, and it will continue to do so every two years as long as Democrats insist that anyone who disagrees with them is, ipso facto, a simpleton -- or "Neanderthal," as Teresa Heinz Kerry described those unimpressed by her husband's foreign policy. In my time, I've known dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and other members of Britain's House of Lords and none of them had the contempt for the masses one routinely hears from America's coastal elites. And, in fairness to those ermined aristocrats, they could afford Dem-style contempt: A seat in the House of Lords is for life; a Senate seat in South Dakota isn't.

    Ouch! The full column can be read here and it's mandatory reading! You MUST read this! Have I made myself clear? :)

    Friday, November 05, 2004

    Weekend hiatus

    I'm not going to be posting anything this weekend, since I will be visiting my family in Memphis. Anything I process over the weekend will get posted here, but if there's anything monumental and breaking, then someone else will have to deliver the message. Hard to imagine anything truly huge after the election...kinda anti-climactic. At least I hope so.

    Anyhoo, have a great weekend! I'll be thinking of all you guys when I'm downing the finest BBQ in the world! ;)

    Thursday, November 04, 2004

    Bush should govern from the center?

    At today's press conference, Bush was asked if he planned on naming any Democrats to his second-term Cabinet. He was also asked how he planned on reaching out to Democrats.

    Huh? Who says he has to?

    To recap:

    1. Bush just won the presidency by 3% of the popular vote and 3.5 million votes nationwide.

    2. With all due respect to John Thune (who ran a stellar and positive campaign), Bush is almost single-handedly responsible for retiring Tom Daschle, sending the unambiguous message that there are consequences to being an obstructionist.

    3. With the exception of Pete Coors in Colorado, every state that Bush campaigned in to help Senate Republican candidates, those candidates won. They picked up four extra Senate seats, making it 55-45 GOP. Think hard about filibustering now, Dems!

    4. Bush won Florida soundly this time, despite predictions that the 2000 debacle would do him in.

    5. Bush won every state in between the left coast and the liberal northeast (excluding MI, MN, and WI), i.e. the Heartland of America. That's 32 states, folks. Plus, he picked up two "blue" states: NM and IA.

    So tell me again, you clueless Washington press corps jackasses who sold your souls to get Bush (unsuccessfully) tossed out: why in the hell does he need to reach out to the monumental losers?

    Coulter on the final flip-flop

    She's brilliant, as usual. Her column, hilarious and observant as always. An excerpt:

    I guess John Kerry went into the primary without a plan to win the election.

    The Democrats threw everything they had at this election. They ran a phony Vietnam War hero and a phony Southerner. They had middle-aged women executives at MTV hawking "Rock the Vote" to entice the most uninformed young people to vote for Kerry. They had Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews and New York Times darling Eminem. They had documentaries, books, the universities, Hollywood (and the French!) on their side.

    Full column here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20041104.shtml

    Democrats strike out in the South...as usual!

    A great column about the Dems' failure in the South, and how they need to do some soul-searching about (a) their direction, and (b) how they view the electorate...or at least the portion that doesn't live on the coasts or in New England.

    A brief, yet brilliant, excerpt:

    And while the South is more solidly Republican than ever, the troubles of the Democrats don't stop there. Why? Because on matters of cultural values, Southern attitudes since the 1960s have filtered into the mainstream. National Democrats should care plenty about this. But they keep thinking their losses stem from Republican demagoguery or from a misunderstanding of their message by voters in the hinterlands or - let's be totally honest - from an epidemic of stupidity among the people whose minds they want to win.

    In short, they haven't a clue.

    One of the main reasons I have always despised liberalism is that its followers think that they're warped sense of values and their self-perceived "deep intellectual" comprehension of issues makes them so much smarter than the average American. How do you expect Americans to follow you if you think they're just too stupid to see your myopic viewpoints?

    The headline of the U.K.'s The Independent newspaper, which is highly anti-American and anti-Bush, had an inflammatory cover for their newspaper yesterday. It read: "Four More Years" which pictures of terrorists detained in orange jumpsuits, missiles, an unflattering Bush photo, etc. Also, the Daily Mirror, which is a similar U.K. rag, had their cover page emblazoned with "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?" It is precisely these scenarios which illustrate the sheer arrogance and contempt that liberals possess that make them unelectable in America.

    Yet, for a group that fancies itself for being so damned smart...they don't seem to get it!

    Wednesday, November 03, 2004

    I'm exhausted...I'll post more thoughts on Thursday

    I got four hours sleep last night. Then, I took my kids to the fair tonight. So now I'm tired AND broke (fair fares are highway robbery). G'night!

    P.S. My kids had a blast at the fair. My daughter loved the rides, and I wasn't sure she would. Few things will warm your heart faster than watching an autistic little girl smiling from ear to ear and laughing endlessly on these rides. Well worth my added exhaustion.

    Media update, part II

    It's 2:07 p.m. EST on Wednesday. Kerry has conceded. Yet ABC and CNN have yet to award Ohio (and thus the presidency) to Bush. Hey, why let a little thing like a concession stop them, right? Just because Kerry's conceded doesn't mean that the MSM has!

    By the way, if 100% of the precincts are counted in Iowa and New Mexico, and Bush has leads in both of them by several thousand votes, why haven't those states been called for Bush?

    That's a rhetorical question.

    Kerry concedes, and so does Castor

    Kerry has conceded, but I wonder...can he flip-flop on that? Gore did in 2000, and Kerry is a much better flip-flopper than Gore. "I actually did concede...before I undid it!"

    Betty Castor has conceded the FL Senate race to Mel Martinez. Yet another GOP pickup. Looking like a 55-45 Senate.

    Thoughts on the media...and the popular vote

    Fox News Channel and MSNBC have both called Ohio for Bush. Reuters, CNN,CBS, and ABC are still holding out hope for Kerry. ABC called Ohio for Bush last night around 1:00 a.m., and Peter Jennings looked like someone slapped his mother when he uttered the bitter words: "We're projecting Bush to win Ohio, so that in effect seals the election." I guess the Kerry folks got a hold of him, because as of right now, they've removed it from their board.

    Also...exit polls. Have the MSM learned nothing from 2000? In 2000, exit polls had Gore winning Arizona by 4%. He lost by 6%. They had Gore winning Florida by 3%. He lost, barely. This time, exit polls had Kerry winning my state of FL by 3%...he lost by 5%! Exit polls had Kerry winning PA by a whopping 16%...he won by 6%. Dump exit polls and use raw data, people!

    Also, this time Bush won the popular vote, 51% - 48%. Read this and weep, liberals! You cried about a "stolen" election in 2000, and it hasn't resonated in four years! Bush becomes the first president since his father in 1988 to win an actual majority. Bill Clinton, though elected twice, never won a majority: 42% in 1992 and 49% in 1996. Bush won more votes than Clinton did, both times he was elected!

    So Gore thought that having the 0.7% popular vote lead in 2000 gave him some leeway in trying to steal Florida...after all, he was just trying to cement his popular vote win with his electoral "win", right? Then tell me how, you stinking hypocrites, does Kerry get a pass by the MSM in his attempts to steal Ohio when he has clearly won neither the popular nor the electoral votes? Hell, he's lost the popular vote by 3.3 million and 3%. But we all know the electoral vote counts, so that's the one that Bush will win by.

    Ding dong, the witch is dead!

    Tom Daschle has gone down in defeat in South Dakota! How embarrassing this must be for him! No Senate leader of any party has lost since 1952...nice job, Dasshole!

    Just goes to show you that you cannot be a Washington liberal in DC and expect to sell that compost heap back in Dakota. Your voters are a little smarter than that!

    And in typical liberal fashion (see Al Gore 2000, John Kerry 2004), Daschle has not yet conceded (as of 5:58 a.m. EST).

    What a night!

    UPDATE: It's now 8:35 a.m. EST. Daschle conceded early this morning, so it's official now! Guess he couldn't find enough dead Indians to vote twice.

    Bush wins Florida!

    Hey, Democrooks! I got your hanging chad....right HERE!!!!!!!!!

    Looks like that terrorist-nurturing b#tch Betty Castor is going to sue Mel Martinez. Can you sue for assault and battery for an electoral #ss-kicking?? If so, Bush needs to get some lawyers to fight off Kerry in Florida!

    It's 12:33 a.m. I'm going to bed, still don't know Ohio yet. But I can't stay awake any more!

    Tuesday, November 02, 2004

    A view from Florida on Election Day

    This post may be updated throughout the day today. It's 6:57 p.m. EST right now. The polls close in three minutes. Let's see if the MSM falls all over themselves to call FL for Kerry but hold off on calling red states for Bush.

    In the Jacksonville area, where I live, turnout has been heavy this morning. Polls opened at 7:00 a.m., and people were lined up at virtually every precinct. My co-worker came in and told me that she waited for 50 minutes before casting her vote for Kerry...I tried to talk her out of voting, but she politely declined my advice...hey, I tried! ;) Sigh...never mix politics with work!

    In Clay County, which is a suburban and rural county bordering Jacksonville, the polls saw heavy traffic, but it moved smoothly. Not too many condo commandos to hose things up there. Plus, the county has about 2.2 Republicans for every Democrat. Al Gore lost Clay County big time in 2000, and you're hard-pressed to find many Kerry signs here.

    FLASH: Philly cheating before polls opened, ballots stuffed!

    From Drudge:

    Before voting even began in Philadelphia -- poll watchers found nearly 2000 votes already planted on machines scattered throughout the city... One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4 machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly 500... A second location, 1901 W. Girard Ave., Berean Institute, Philadelphia, Pa, had 300+ votes already on 2 machines at start of day... INCIDENT: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia, Pa.; INCIDENT: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa... A gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers at Ward 30, division 11, at 905 S. 20th St., Grand Court. Police were called and surrounded the location... Developing...

    I have no proof, but considering Democrats' shameful history of voting fraud (from 1960 through 2000, and in South Dakota in 2002), as well as the closeness of PA in this election, I'm betting the vast majority of these 2000 planted ballots are for John Kerry.

    Just a hunch.

    Monday, November 01, 2004

    Fun interactive Electoral College Map

    Here's a fun way to monkey around with some Electoral College scenarios:

    Opinion Journal EC Calculator

    Osama targets "red states"

    Osama is trying to influence your vote by threatening states that vote for Bush (red states) and vowing peace with states that vote for Kerry (blue states). Story here.

    If you vote for Kerry because you're afraid to vote for Bush, then congrats...your cowardly #ss just had your vote purchased by the bullying of the world's terrorist mastermind. Besides, you are a colossal fool if you believe anything that comes out of that murderous madman's mouth!

    So does that mean if Kerry is elected president, but loses massively in every Southern state (which, save Florida, he will), then OBL will attack Tennessee after the election? If so, will New Yorkers and New Jerseyans say that Tennesseeans should have voted for Kerry?

    I don't know about you, but I'm more determined than ever to see Bush re-elected. Bring it on, b#tch!

    Annoy the U.N.: Re-elect Bush!

    The best way to thumb our collective noses at the U.N. is to re-elect President Bush. The U.N. hates him, which is reason enough to vote for him. Also, the U.N. is attempting to sink his presidency by trying to influence our election (story here).

    But the U.N. is in great company when it comes to concerted efforts to sink Bush: the U.N., CBS, New York Times, and of course, Osama bin Laden. Now that's a sad testament and a damning indictment of our media here, huh? They're in bed with not only each other and the DNC, but with the U.N. and OBL.

    Why Daschle will lose

    OK, I have to admit, I have to see it before I believe it. But there is a very real chance that Dasshole will not win his race to be the Senate Obstructionist Leader. Professor Stuntz of Harvard has a great column on why Daschle will lose tomorrow.